R v KOSTOVSKI & NIKOLOVSKI [2010] NSWDC 296

R v KOSTOVSKI & NIKOLOVSKI [2010] NSWDC 296

The assessment of the objective gravity of aggravated break, enter and steal under s 112(2) Crimes Act must consider the total legislative range of offences (not just stealing in company), the particular facts (e.g. scale of theft, damage, organisation), and both discount for cooperation and pleas while ensuring the final sentence remains proportionate. In this case, the particular circumstances – high value and quantity stolen, repeated conduct, and significant cooperation – place the offences slightly below mid-range for objective seriousness, justifying effective overall sentences of imprisonment as set out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment as specified, with discounts for assistance to authorities and guilty pleas; parole eligibility ordered.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'aggravated Break and Enter' 'stealing' 'assistance to Authorities' 'objective Seriousness']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'aggravated Break and Enter' 'stealing' 'assistance to Authorities' 'objective Seriousness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How to assess the objective gravity of offences under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act where the serious indictable offence is stealing and the circumstance of aggravation is being in company' 'Appropriate sentencing discounts for guilty plea and assistance to authorities' 'Assessment of subjective and objective factors in sentencing for aggravated break and enter']

Ratio Decidendi

The assessment of the objective gravity of aggravated break, enter and steal under s 112(2) Crimes Act must consider the total legislative range of offences (not just stealing in company), the particular facts (e.g. scale of theft, damage, organisation), and both discount for cooperation and pleas while ensuring the final sentence remains proportionate. In this case, the particular circumstances – high value and quantity stolen, repeated conduct, and significant cooperation – place the offences slightly below mid-range for objective seriousness, justifying effective overall sentences of imprisonment as set out.

Court Disposition

Offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment as specified, with discounts for assistance to authorities and guilty pleas; parole eligibility ordered.

Orders

  • ['In the case of Mr Kostovski, the effective overall sentence is a period of imprisonment with a non parole period of four years and a total term of six and a half years. Eligible for parole on 27 March 2014.' 'In the case of Mr Nikolovski, the effective overall sentence is a period of imprisonment with a non parole...